get_blocklist

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by stating the operation is paginated ('Page through') and that each entry includes the block reason. However, it never explicitly confirms this is a read-only, side-effect-free operation, and it omits details like result ordering or behavior with no matches — beyond the schema's 'default' sort_direction enum.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single 22-word sentence with the core verb+resource front-loaded, followed by a clarifying definitional clause. Every word earns its place — the em-dash gloss explains the Sonarr-specific concept rather than padding, and there is no re-stating of schema or annotation content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a paginated list tool with 0 required parameters, full schema coverage, and a self-explanatory name, the description captures the essential semantics: what is listed, the pagination behavior, and one key return field (block reason). What's missing is minor — an explicit read-only statement and the full set of fields in each entry — but since there is no output schema, slightly more return-shape detail would round it out.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters (page, sort_key, page_size, protocols, series_ids, sort_direction), including defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema; its only contribution is framing the domain meaning of the entries being filtered, which is the expected baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Page through') tied to a precise resource ('blocklisted releases') and defines the domain term in the em-dash clause ('releases Sonarr has been told never to grab again'). It also signals what distinguishes the data — 'with the reason they were blocked' — which separates it from siblings like get_queue or get_history, and the read nature contrasts with remove_blocklist_item/remove_blocklist_items.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer it over get_history, get_queue, or the remove_blocklist_* siblings, and no exclusion criteria. The intended context is only implied by the tool name and the word 'blocklisted'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.